According to the link in my latest post, it appears that construction material prices have gone up 26% in the last year alone, while the government is trying to delay construction rather than move forward with it.
2 Likes
I think something like 3 of the last five to go where under Conservative leadership wasnât it (Woking, Northampton, Thurrock - with Slough and Croydon in recent years being under labour).
The scary thing is that apparently there are about 30% of councils rumoured to be on the edge (mentioned in the news articles on Birmingham).
Whereâs all the council money J⌠Rishi?
1 Like
Capacity and all that. How much freight actually moves on rail? It was the worldâs most fabulous white elephant.
A quick Google suggests that costs are high because of constant political meddling, land price costs, and the desire to bury it in tunnels.
Construction costs donât really come into play, except for the use of concrete instead of ballast, which is suggested to greatly reduce maintenance costs in the long-run.
This is inexcusable, however.
1 Like
Ironic given what Brunel did.
It was always an incredible white elephant of a scheme. But look at how the cost have ballooned. Itâs everything wrong with stuff like this in Britain. Massive infrastructure project seen as a free cash machine by everyone concerned.
I read it a while back. I think the comparison was related to a 150mph vs 200mph railway. The faster line requires stronger lines, bridges, wider clearances and so on. It doesnât sound that much more but you are talking about increasing the kinetic energy of the object by around 80%. That results in a 25% percent theoretical reduction in journey time at top speed but once you add in starting and stopping it is no where near that but the whole thing needs to be engineered for that top speed.
Another argument was that it would reduce the number of internal UK flights but the bulk of UK internal slights are between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh/Belfast/Aberdeen.
I remember seeing another survey about why people didnât use trains and the big things mentioned where availability, reliability and cost. Speed barely entered into it.
1 Like
Good friend of mine has been working on it for several years. Had a lovely 2 weeks in Barbados in summer. The stories he tellsâŚâŚ
Lots of factors I suspect. Public procurement is riddled with problems for example. But this smacks of simply not being ready and a load of changes coming in late.
Large Engineering consultants and contractors have become red hot at derisking their side of the contract and razor sharp at identifying and raising contract changes. You throw in political meddling on top of that youâre in a world of hurt straight away.
Iâd be interested to know the contract terms thatâs allowed a contractor to claim the increase. Normally theyâd have to absorb it but I appreciate the increase is unprecedented. That said if thereâs changes⌠
Thanks and all sensible. I might have a look at a design standard or two if I get a chance. See if there is a dramatic step change at those levels.
Iâve always argued with many an engineer and architect that generally increasing material volumes donât really impact projects that much (ignoring the base rate cost in this instance). The cost always lies in the labour. For example, making a beam bigger is neither here nor there, but if that beam needs 2 weeks extra fabrication for whatever reason then thereâs a step change in cost. So in this instance the cost lies at the front end i.e deciding to build a railway. So Iâm looking for the increased labour between a 150mph and 200mph one.
I think youâre right in that itâs things like land take etc. that are behind it.
2 Likes
I canât recall where I saw the article but right from the start the proponents of HS2 have been rather vague about what, exactly, it is for.
Is it about speed of travel, or capacity, or road / air replacement, or whatever?
I donât think the original business case was clear about what it wanted to do. However, the actual high speed bit doesnât add much to the economy but that is seemingly the most expensive element.
All it was guaranteed to do was jack the property prices along the route with reference to travel time to London for commuters. The same old play whilst weâre left to keep spinning the treadmill up and beyond.
1 Like
4 Likes
no, when you start moving weight at speed it decreases capacity of the line. not increased capacity. quicker transit is inversely proportionate to rider volume.
So theyâre taking the money out of HS2 and reinvesting it in northern transport or whatever
Just to be clear for anyone else reading this, because I had to do additional research.
This is referring to the concept that the capacity of the line is determined by the minimum headway of the line. This is the minimum distance between trains that can be operated safely, which as @Semmy points out, but not completely, is all else being equal, I believe, proportional to the square of the operating speed (since itâs the braking distance thatâs relevant and so on). Therefore, assuming all else being equal yet again, a train that travels twice as fast has four times the braking distance, which is only inversely proportional to weight, so each time you double the speed, you have to reduce the weight by a quarter to match the capacity.
However, that also assumes that trains will be run at their maximum speeds at all times, which I presume they would not be if more capacity is needed. Itâs quite easily feasible to reduce train speeds to add more trains onto lines, but thatâs not the main issue with HS2 anyway.
1 Like
If (and thatâs a bloody big if) this is implemented, I genuinely feel sorry for the retailers. Imagine asking everybody for ID on restricted sales. Big supermarkets will implement policies and train staff but your local shops will struggle.
1 Like
Well, might mean our local station is re-opened. Would be more use to me than HS2.